Appeal 6001305

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The application form seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Therefore, I have considered the details on the ‘Proposed 1/100 Site Plan’, on the basis that they are indicative only.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to trees; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of 52 and [address] (Nos 52 and 54), with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is currently the side garden of the semi-detached Victorian dwelling at No 52. It is located on a residential street predominately comprising large detached and semi-detached properties, the majority of which occupy generous plots. While there is some variety in house types and architectural styles, houses on [address] often incorporate distinctive architecture. For example, No 52 forms a symmetrical pair with double height angled bay windows with dormers above, both of which display intricate detailing and traditional materials. The properties here also generally have wide frontages and are typically set back from the street behind front gardens. Stone front boundary walls are a prominent feature of the street. The layout of the street is spacious, particularly where the road bends close to the appeal site, with sizeable gaps between many of the dwellings. This pattern of development, together with the general quality of architecture, prevalence of stone walls and mature street trees, creates a traditional, leafy and distinctive street scene.

The rear boundaries of the appeal site and its neighbours to this side of [address] back on to [address]. This results in a predominance of high brick walls, punctuated occasionally by integral garage doors and gates to that side of this neighbouring street. Despite some limited variation in the height and materiality of these walls, the result is a notably enclosed and consistent street scene, that clearly demarks the rear of the properties on [address].

While the application is made in outline, the parameters of the site dictate that the envisaged two-storey dwelling, anticipated in the application form as having 4+ bedrooms, would be likely to occupy a substantial proportion of the plot’s width, as depicted in the indicative drawing. The existing dwellings at Nos 52 and [address] to their respective side boundaries, and the indicative plan suggests the dwelling would likely sit on or very close to the side boundaries. Such a layout would appear cramped leaving the existing dwelling at No 52 with a markedly narrow plot, particularly when compared with its attached counterpart at No 50.

While the ridge height of the proposed dwelling could be designed to suitably reflect prevailing building heights, the suggested tight positioning of the dwelling between existing dwellings would be uncharacteristic and would erode the spacious pattern of development along this part of the street.

Furthermore, the indicative plan suggests that a substantial section of the stone boundary wall along [address] would likely need to be removed to facilitate the provision of a wide driveway for off-street parking. Moreover, alternative off street parking provision is indicated for the existing dwelling at No 52 and such an arrangement would likely create a large gap in the walling on [address]. Therefore, there is the potential that the development would create uncharacteristically open plots, significantly detracting from the cohesive walled character of these streets.

Whether or not the existing walls could be altered or removed under permitted development rights, their removal would compound the harm already identified in terms of the envisaged layout of the proposed dwelling. The appellant suggests that high gates could be provided on [address]. However, the design of any such gates is unclear and given they would potentially span the full width of No 52’s resultant rear boundary, there is the potential that they would appear as a substantial and intrusive feature within the prevailing walled character of the street. In any case, high gates to the [address] boundary would not overcome the identified harm resulting from the development to the character and appearance of [address].

With regard to trees, Policy EN7 of the Nottingham City Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document – Local Plan Part 2 (2020) (LP2) states that planning permission for development proposals affecting trees will only be granted where existing high value trees are retained and protected, along with other trees and landscaping where possible. It is not clear from the indicative plan whether the trees within the site would need to be removed to facilitate the development. Even so, these are medium sized specimens and, given their size and siting within the site, they are of modest visual amenity value. The site is also not within a conservation area, and the trees do not appear to be subject to a Tree Preservation Order. I am not therefore persuaded that the proposed development would give rise to harm in that particular respect.

However, the street tree located close to the appeal site’s front boundary is a mature specimen. Given its age, substantial height and prominent siting within the street, it makes an important contribution to the verdant character of [address]. The indicative plan does not show this tree. However, it seems entirely possible that works to provide the indicated vehicular crossing could encroach into the root protection area, giving rise to a realistic risk that the health of this tree would be compromised. Thus, and in the absence of a survey or assessment to indicate otherwise, the retention and protection of this tree could not be guaranteed. The suggestion that additional parking could be provided off [address] instead raises the potential that an even greater gap or requirement for open access would be required from that street to facilitate car movements from the existing and proposed dwellings.

While the proposal is for outline planning permission, there is no alternative indicative drawing before me to suggest that all the above matters could be addressed and that a dwelling with the level of accommodation envisaged could be laid out to better reflect the appeal site’s immediate surroundings on both [address] and [address].

Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including but not limited to trees. In that regard, it would conflict with Policy 10 of the [name] – Local Plan Part 1 (2014) (LP1) and Policies DE1, DE2 and EN7 of the LP2 which require, amongst other things, that developments make a positive contribution to the public realm, will be assessed in terms of their treatment of elements including street patterns, plots sizes, positioning of buildings and the layout of spaces, respect and enhance the streetscape, local environment, townscape and character of the area, reinforce positive local characteristics, enhance the character and distinctive identity of the area, and retain and protect existing high value trees.

While the site plan is indicative, the narrow width of the plot means that any dwelling is likely to be sited similarly and therefore on, or very close to, the boundaries with Nos 52 and 54. On account of this, a dwelling of the scale and approximate siting envisaged has the potential to appear overbearing, particularly for occupiers of No 52 which has numerous ground and upper floor side elevation windows facing the site. Given the likely separation distances involved and the relative orientation of the buildings factoring in the path of the sun, there is also the potential that the proposal would impede the level of sunlight and daylight received by rooms served by these windows.

There are no alternative indicative layouts or detailed assessment of the windows at No 52, including in terms of the rooms they serve, to demonstrate that there would be no harmful effects in terms of outlook and/or light. The fact that the subdivided plot would retain suitably sized gardens, would not on its own be sufficient to overcome the potential harm to the internal living environment at No 52.

With regards to No 54, as referenced by the Council and seen during my site visit, the side windows on this dwelling are fewer in number, small and either obscure glazed or secondary. The indicative drawing also indicates that there could be more of a staggered alignment and greater gap provided between the side wall of this dwelling. Therefore, it is likely that a scheme could be devised to ensure that there would be no significant effect on outlook and light for occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling.

Consequently, the proposed development would be likely to have a harmful effect on living conditions for occupiers of No 52, with particular regard to outlook and light. It would therefore conflict with Policy 10 of the LP1 and Policy DE1 of the LP2 which require that a satisfactory level of amenity is provided for occupiers of neighbouring properties.

I acknowledge that the appellant submitted an outline application to reduce the costs of preparing a full planning application. Even so, outline submissions must still provide sufficient information to allow the likely effects of the development to be understood. For the reasons set out, I cannot be certain that the harm identified under the main issues could be resolved at reserved matters stage.

In terms of the Council’s handling of the planning application, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the Council failed to meet its procedural obligations. In any event, such concerns do not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the proposed development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.